I LOVE that they switched!

Some people prefer one role to the other. It's not about love or trust, it's about preference. So if both don't mind, then it shouldn't matter but if they do, that's their choice. You should have to be forced into a role you don't want because of someone else.

It might as well be rape.

shouldn't*

As a reader I don't mind whether the couple is reversible or not, I enjoy it either way if we have a solid plot; however, I do agree that the emotional power dynamic of a reversible couple is undoubtedly more equitable than a non-reversible one; and this is due that the the seme/uke trope is based on the patriarchal system of male dominance over women. In the case of Yaoi, the Seme is typically taller, with rough hewn muscled body and more defined masculine facial features; whereas the uke is typically shorter with slim body frame and more feminized facial features and overall characteristics. So in terms of true equality in a relationship, reversibility should be the way to go for all couples that truly love each other, where they are not bound by archaic patriarchal dictums, and where give and take is an important aspect of the relationship; however, it all comes down to the sexual preference of each individual within each relationship; so as long as the couple in the story is ok with the roles they play, so am I :D

"a reversible couple is undoubtedly more equitable than a non-reversible one; and this is due that the the seme/uke trope is based on the patriarchal system of male dominance over women. "

No, that is not true. Love and trust and equality does not mean we should be able to do the same things. It means we should accept that we all have our own preferences. Let's say a seme should not be forced to be an uke if they do not want to and neither should a uke be forced to be a seme if they do not want to. I understand in Yaoi it seems like the guys are always fighting for the top spot but that is in no way true in real life. Some men simply prefer to be a bottom and some men simply prefer to be a top. Their preferences should not be something that ties to how much they can/will love someone else.You can't state patriachal dictums here because those are talking exclusively to male and female relationships those FORCING similar male/female ideas or ideals are usually straight people. A man can choose to play a bottom role and this has nothing to do with pratriachal dictums, this is their preference and telling them that that is not true equality is discriminating to their preference.

"reversibility should be the way to go for all couples that truly love each other, where they are not bound by archaic patriarchal dictums,"

Not true. No guy should be forced to stick their dick in someone else or have a dick stuck in them just for this 'false equality' you have going on. Couples themselves should decide the roles they want to play and whether they would be happy playing one role or both. Having to play a role you do not want to is not equality. Please do not think that true equality means they play the same roles, similarly in dominant submissive relationship, a woman can be a dominant and a man can be a submissive and THAT is equality because they chose the roles they prefer. It's ALL preference. TRUE equality is talking it out and deciding your roles and what you are comfortable with and then doing what you feel comfortable with. True equality is not having people play the same roles, it is people having the SAME opportunity to play the roles they each prefer.

It's just like how girls should have the SAME opportunity to get the same job as men but that does not mean they should be forced to take the job just to fit equality that is not equality.

Gray, did you read my post in its entirety? Or did you just jump the gun upon zeroing in on my statement regarding equity?
I agree that nobody should be forced to play a role they don’t want. I didn’t imply that “reversibility” should be “imposed” by force of principle, and I made that perfectly clear in the last sentence of my post, which seems to have gone completely over your head, but just in case, here it is again:

“it all comes down to the sexual preference of each individual within each relationship; so as long as the couple in the story is ok with the roles they play, so am I”

Now, let me expound on my position as it may be I wasn’t articulate enough. I confidently stand by my assertion regarding reversibility as the ultimate sign of equality, due that I base it within the context of the gender dynamics of Yaoi relationships, which are incontrovertibly framed in the patriarchal idealization of “male dominance and female submissiveness”; There’s no room for argument on this gender characterization as it is not a matter of opinion but on fact. You can research this yourself as the issues of patriarchy, male dominance, female submissiveness and their biased characterization in literature have been extensively studied and documented by all the social sciences (philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc.) The romance genre in general (of which Yaoi is a subgenre) is based on this prejudiced, discriminatory, inequitable hegemonic masculinity. Just the other day I commented in another post where a fellow reader asked “why do semes always keep their pants (or shirt, etc.) while the uke is always naked when having sex?” And the answer to that is because yaoi couples exemplify this dominant male/submissive female dichotomy and it is based on this state of inequality that reversibility within the seme/uke dynamic is the ultimate ethical representation of true equality.

And this is because no matter how much they may love each other, how ok they may be with their respective roles or how emotionally fulfilled they may be in their relationship, the Bottom/Top roles can never escape their fixed attributes. Top is dominant, Bottom is submissive, Top always feels pleasure, Bottom has to always negotiate with pain, no matter how resilient their anus is, no matter how much they love the act, how pleasurable they find it, no matter how stretched or accustomed their anus has become, or how much they prepare the anus prior sex, for the Bottom, there is always the potentiality of pain or worst, anal fissures; Top is ready to engage in sex without much preparation, Bottom has to deal with arduous anal hygiene (pre-sex anal douche and post-sex cleansing). Again, these are factual attributes that cannot be avoided, denied or escaped. The bottom typically holds the submissive role, and always has to deal with the negatives and inconveniences (along with the pleasures) of having their anus penetrated.

Now, do you understand what I’m writing here? That from a theoretical ethical standpoint, reversibility symbolizes equality, it counters the inequality of the patriarchal idealization of male dominance typified by the seme/uke gender roles. I am not proposing that all mangakas rise like banshees in a feminist outcry and impose reversibility on all their yaoi couples, or that that real life couples do the same; what I’m doing here is presenting a theoretical ethical argument for reversibility as the ultimate (and most likely the only) symbol of gender/power equality in yaoi couples.

No.

Like I said, if you want true equality it is NOT about trying to reverse past conceptions. What you should is LET GO of it. By reversing it, you are just amplifying its importance.

It is also untrue that in mangakas ukes meant submissive and seme meant dominant. Mangakas in the past has already written in the reverse. While it is not as many, it was still present. By showing reversibility you are only trying to reverse what was already there when that is not the case. You are then only showing another untruth.

By acknowledging that patriachal roles dictate which position and how it should then you opposing it by reversibility, you are still ACKNOWLEDGING the patriachal roles by saying 'Hey no, we shouldn't have one role, we should do both to be neither.' You're still saying it's only fair if everybody plays both roles because THEN it does not play into patriachal roles but at the same time you're still admitting that if you choose to do just one role it means you are following patriachal standards. You see how you're still following the patriachal mindset in such a way? Instead we should do with the preconceived notion that one role actually plays to one specific character type/gender.

True equality should be something like no role is meant for a particular position/gender/masculinity/feminity. It should be a choice/preference that you yourself make. Instead of saying "Hey in manga there shouldn't be a set role for each partner, there should be reversibility so we can have equal roles." We should be advocating that "Hey, your character/personality should not dictate what role you play and one person being more dominating does not mean you then have to give your ass to them even when you don't want to. You should play the role you feel most comfortable and you and your partner should discuss it." Be equal by having the same chance to choose a role.

I understand it might be difficult to understand using simply text. I'm a pictorial person myself but I hope you understand by saying that reversibility is a true equal way, you are still admitting that one role is deemed lower/worse than the other and that one role STILL means that the character will act according to the role they set(being submissive/dominant when they are bottom/top) when that should not be the way. If you want true equality is better to throw away the idea that one role fits one character, not that they all should be reversible.

Sorry to put it simply.

Character A: I want to be an uke!

You: No, you should do reversible or else you'll simply be submissive!

Character B: I want to be seme!

You: No! You should do reversible or else you'll simply be dominant!

I'm just trying to show how if we want an equal world in manga(in your belief), this would be how it sounds like(not that you are trying to enforce it)

You are still admitting that one role has a predetermined character type.

Why should we have reversibility? We shouldn't NEED to have reversibility because we shouldn't SEE any role as one predetermined character type(Which I get that you're trying to explain but your method is still wrong). And to do that we should therefore abolish the MINDSET that one roles fits a certain character. NOT by advocating true equality is reversibility.

"the Bottom/Top roles can never escape their fixed attributes. Top is dominant, Bottom is submissive, Top always feels pleasure, Bottom has to always negotiate with pain, no matter how resilient their anus is, no matter how much they love the act, how pleasurable they find it, no matter how stretched or accustomed their anus has become, or how much they prepare the anus prior sex, for the Bottom, there is always the potentiality of pain or worst, anal fissures; Top is ready to engage in sex without much preparation, Bottom has to deal with arduous anal hygiene (pre-sex anal douche and post-sex cleansing). Again, these are factual attributes that cannot be avoided, denied or escaped. The bottom typically holds the submissive role, and always has to deal with the negatives and inconveniences (along with the pleasures) of having their anus penetrated."

Are you a male gay? Can you speak for the whole population? Do you understand by saying that it would ALWAYS be submissive is YOUR WRONG perception. The fact that the person CHOSE to be a certain role showed that it is their choice. You are ENFORCING your belief that the role means submissive.

"Submissive means: ready to conform to the authority or will of others; meekly obedient or passive."

What you are saying is that the person is submissive simply by being bottom when that is SO WRONG on SO MANY LEVELS. If the person CHOOSES the role of THEIR OWN VIOLATION that means they are not submissive. A person can still be a bottom and dominant if they force the Top to be their Top because then the TOP is CONFORMING to your authority. You are ENFORCING YOUR BELIEFS that the role is predetermined to be submissive SIMPLY because of the discomfort they must face when that is NOT THE CASE AT ALL. You can't change the meaning of submissive to suit your argument. What someone chooses to go through is of their own violation. Unless they are being FORCED to the position, they are still choosing what they want to do.

All that talk about trouble with caring for anal hygeine and without much preparation is not something that is simply TAKEN AS A FACT or a factor(some people may not care what they have to go through to have a dick in their ass. You are enforcing your belief/opinion on the 'troubles' you think they may face when they might not find it a trouble as long as they get a dick. What constitutes as discomfort for you may not be true for everyone else. And therefore can't be taken as fact. ANd come on, the top faces trouble with penile hygeine which I can tell you, is MORE COMMON and usually MORE DETRIMENTAL) That's why you choose who you get into a relationship with or who you have sex with. If someone has sex without the proper preparation and WITHOUT your consent(because there's some men who actually said they like the pain once in awhile) then we're talking about a whole different deal here which is rape.

Do NOT dictate the inconvenience of someone else by YOUR OWN beliefs. And please please please do not misrepresent the word submissive willy nilly. It DOES NOT mean what you think it means. "Typically hold the submissive role" OPINION! There are such things as femdom and there ARE such things as dominant bottom. Do not mix fact with opinions, your comment is laced with them

By the way, I don't think you should reply me until you can grasp what submissive means.

And once again, it all just goes over your head. I’m not sure if it’s a case of Dunning-Kruger or any other cognitive bias, but it is evident based on your erratic responses that had nothing to do with the central issue I expounded on that you lack the cognitive depth to understand the subject in context. In the simplest terms possible, the universal fixed attributes of a thing do not change because of external exceptions. An apple is still an apple whether some people choose to it eat it or not. One does not respond to an objective discussion with one’s subjective opinion. It is futile if you cannot understand the central issue of an objective discussion. The only thing I can recommend to you as constructive criticism is to get educated, expand your mind and your cognitive depth so that someday you are able to differentiate between Objective perspective and subjective opinion.

You see, you used so many terms but did not once talked about the points I made. You are not being objective. You are trying to use 'emotional' reasons to deny what I said rather thta arguing the points that I made. And girl, or boy or whoever you are, I've seen that being played out before, it's weak. I hope you don't write your essays like that.

Do you really believe you were being objective when you made SUBMISSIVE to mean the person who might receive more pain? That's not being objective, that's being SUBJECTIVE because you manipulated the meaning of submissive to what you BELIEVE it means rather than the correct term of the word.

You were being subjective when you continued to state that simply by being the bottom they are submissive.

You are being subjective when you chose to ignore the fact that I said that you are still following patriachal roles by saying that only reversible is equality. If you want to argue, then stop trying to act like you are smart by using flowery words and I don't know...make a point? Do not try to play by emotions and telling people they are being subjective when you could not do me the simple act of explaining the CORRECT meaning of submissive.

Do not ask someone to subjective when you could not do the same for them.

And sorry, I aimed for YOUR objective discussion about the nonsense of 'equality is reversibility' but you choose to ignore it. I aimed for the RIDICULOUS point about how simply being a bottom and receiving more pain means the person is being submissive. It's seriously boggled my mind that you could try to act smart but TOTALLY MISINTERPRET THE WORD and then choose to reply with the BS above because you cannot deny that I made a point. I also aim for other points but I see you rather play the emotion game than have a true discussion. Have fun with that.